REL08/31/07
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334)
229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made
before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2006-2007
_________________________
CR-06-0984
_________________________
William Lamar Mills
v.
State of Alabama
Appeal from Shelby Circuit Court
(CC-95-1266.60)
BASCHAB, PRESIDING JUDGE
The
appellant,
William
Lamar
Mills,
alleges
that,
in
February 1995, he pled guilty to first-degree murder; that the
trial court sentenced him to serve a term of life in prison;
and that he did not appeal his conviction.
On February 5,
CR-06-0984
2007, he filed a Rule 32 petition, alleging that his sentence
has expired.
Without requiring a response from the State, the
circuit court summarily denied the petition.
This appeal
followed.
The appellant argues that he is being held in custody
after his sentence has expired.
Specifically, he contends
that he
"was extradited/transferred, through no fault of his
own and involuntarily, to a private prison in the
State of Louisiana, to the care, custody, and
control of Gary Copes, District Warden for LCS
Corrections Services, Inc., a private correctional
services corporation, which effectively terminated
and expired the Petitioner's sentence, as it
pertains to the physical custody and incarceration
of the Petitioner, imposed by the Court."
(C.R. 9.) 1
In Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245-46, 103 S. Ct.
1741, 1745-46, 75 L. Ed. 2d 813 (1983), the United States
Supreme Court held:
"Just as an inmate has no justifiable expectation
that he will be incarcerated in any particular
prison within a State, he has no justifiable
1
The appellant raises additional arguments in his brief
to this court. However, because he did not first present them
to the circuit court, they are not properly before this court.
See Whitehead v. State, 593 So. 2d 126 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991);
Morrison v. State, 551 So. 2d 435 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989).
2
CR-06-0984
expectation that he will be incarcerated in any
particular State.
Often, confinement in the
inmate's home State will not be possible. A person
convicted of a federal crime in a State without a
federal correctional facility usually will serve his
sentence in another State.
Overcrowding and the
need
to
separate
particular
prisoners
may
necessitate interstate transfers. For any number of
reasons, a State may lack prison facilities capable
of providing appropriate correctional programs for
all offenders."
(Footnote omitted.)
Also, in Turner v. Riley, (No. 06-0065-CG-C, May 22,
2006) (S.D. Ala. 2006) (not reported in F. Supp. 2d), the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Alabama addressed a similar argument as follows:
"Petitioner
complains
that
in
2003
he
was
transferred to Tallahatchie Correctional Facility
(hereinafter 'TCF') in Tutwiler, Mississippi,
pursuant to the Interstate Corrections Compact
(hereinafter 'ICC'), Alabama Code §§14-13-1, et seq.
(1985).
[The Alabama Department of Corrections]
allegedly entered into a contract with Corrections
Corporation of America (hereinafter 'CCA') to
transfer petitioner along with 1400 other Alabama
inmates to TCF.
"....
"Petitioner ... alleges that Alabama lost
jurisdiction over him when he was transferred to CCA
and thus CCA could not legally detain him. ...
"... [I]n a case with facts similar to the
allegations at hand, Evans v. Holm, 114 F. Supp. 2d
706 (W.D. Tenn. 2000), a waiver of jurisdiction was
3
CR-06-0984
found not to occur when an inmate was transferred
from the convicting state to a private correctional
institution in another state pursuant to a contract
between the convicting state and the institution.
Id. at 713.
The Evans court opined that '[a]
prisoner has a legally protected interest in the
conduct of his keeper but not in his keeper's
identity.' Id. at 711 (quoting Pischke v. Litscher,
178 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, Leslie
v. Litscher, 528 U.S. 954, 120 S. Ct. 379, 145 L.
Ed. 2d 296 (1999))."
(Footnote omitted.)
Finally, the Alabama Code does not appear to prohibit the
State from contracting with private correctional facilities
for the placement of inmates.
We agree with the reasoning of the courts in Turner and
Evans, and we likewise conclude that the State of Alabama did
not lose jurisdiction over the appellant when it transferred
him to a private prison facility in Louisiana. Therefore, the
appellant's argument to the contrary is without merit, and we
affirm the circuit court's judgment.
AFFIRMED.
McMillan, Shaw, Wise, and Welch, JJ., concur.
4
